2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 54,887,648, and the delay damages therefrom, excluding the amount partially repaid, since it lent money to the Defendant by means of remitting it to the bank account under the name of the Defendant from 2002 to 2016 several times.

In regard to this, the plaintiff and the defendant have a de facto marital relationship until 2016. Since the money alleged by the plaintiff as a loan is only a monetary receipt derived from a de facto marital relationship, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

B. Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that a party provided and received money between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made has the burden of proving that the lending was made to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). 2) The following circumstances, i.e., there was no dispute between the parties, or the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which are acknowledged as having comprehensively taken into account the overall purport of the pleadings, and there was no receipt, etc., even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant had reached several times of a long time between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant agreed to the interest, or that the Plaintiff did not have urged the Defendant to return money before the filing of the instant lawsuit. In full view of the following, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was a loan claiming payment, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.